PoW vs PoS.

[Anonymous No.50393628]

Redpill me on this. I cannot really see the problem with PoS. Obviously you will want what is best for the network long term if your stake is large. Any good papers on this?

[Anonymous No.50393641]

>>50393628
if i have lots of money i can own the network by simply staking

[Anonymous No.50393662]

>>50393641
That will cost you half the market cap. Is that really a weakness? I can 51% attack a PoW chain as well, given enough money.

[Anonymous No.50393686]

>>50393628
It's all fun and games until Justin Sun buys enough of that token to become the owner of that blockchain

[Anonymous No.50393687]

>>50393628
Proof of stake eliminates all competition and ends up putting all the power in those that have the most money (sounds familiar). PoS also gives zero incentive to improve the network. It's a Jewish scam.

[Anonymous No.50393694]

>>50393662
But it would take an incredible amount of time and work to make that possible, you can't just buy enough mining rigs overnight like that

[Anonymous No.50393744]

>>50393694
>>50393662
Plus, 51% attacks are permanent in PoS, if you have power, you have it forever. In PoW you have to constantly burn energy and hardware to maintain your control.

Also, the worst you can do with 51% in PoW is double spend. In PoS miners and node operators are the same entity (validators), meaning they control slashing, transaction routing. Having majority control is much worse in PoS.

[Anonymous No.50393774]

>>50393628
Proof of Stake and Proof of Work are just Sybil Control Mechanisms and on its own they say nothing about decentralization or security, its basically just spam Protection.

And PoW is actually very similar to PoS because with both you have to make an investment into the network either by buying the hardware or by buying the Stake.

[Anonymous No.50393795]

>>50393628
In a purely democratic system, the minority doesn't hold any power, thus any POS coin is only worth 51% of its market cap. That's all you need to control the entire coin and financially genocide all other minority stakeholders.

[Anonymous No.50393815]

>>50393744
>the worst you can do with 51% in PoW is double spend
Is there anything worse than that? Double spending means that the coin goes to zero in a couple minutes.

[Anonymous No.50393829]

>>50393815
>Is there anything worse than that?
Selfish Mining and Miner Extracted Value come to mind. An illness all Proof of Work chains have today.

[Anonymous No.50393841]

>>50393744
Slashing doesn't have to be a thing on pos does it? Dunno about these things but you might have a good point there.
>>50393795
would this be the case with ALL PoS chains?
>>50393686
Why would he decide to make all the ones that held the token before him rich, and then probably make the token worthless because he is dominating it. This is literally just flushing money out the toilet.

[Anonymous No.50393847]

Take the PoST-pill (HDD-based mining)

[Anonymous No.50393864]

>>50393841
Check out Avalanche, it has the best implementation of Proof of Stake, without any Slashing and no 51% Problem.

[Anonymous No.50393901]

>>50393864
Maybe, but I don't like the devs. There are hundreds of chains I could research in-depth, but I've seen at least one major red flag with avax so won't get into that one.
Also, please refrain from shilling coins unless using as an example to explain something. We're just discussing PoW vs PoS.

[Anonymous No.50393944]

>>50393829
Not with Raptoreum. It's chain has both pow miners and a network of smartnodes that makes 51% attacks effectively impossible. Smartnodes get a portion of each block as incentive.

[Anonymous No.50393970]

>>50393944
Seriously stfu with this inorganic shilling. Your scam coin has no place in this thread, were just discussing the mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.50393998]

>>50393841
I'm not theoretically speaking, I mentioned Justin Sun because he actually did that a bunch of times already, most famous was steem.
You might go ahead and call him a retard and say financially it's a bad idea, but rich people can and do buy PoS blockchains

[Anonymous No.50394020]

>>50393998
Kek ok, that's actually a really good point. What about starting out with PoW then switching to PoS for efficiency later? Justin Sun probably couldn't buy ETH for example.

[Anonymous No.50394027]

>>50393901
Avalanche still has the best Proof of Stake mechanism on the Market.
No slashing and just buying the stake to run nodes is not enough, you‘d need delegators on your node too to give it some weight so just buying and staking and attempting a 51% attack wouldnt work.
Avalanche is unlike any other Blockchain network because of its superior Consensus Mechanism and leaderless architecture.

[Anonymous No.50394054]

>>50394027
STFU you inorganic shill, you have no idea how see-through you are.

[Anonymous No.50394094]

>>50394020
Ethereum has a shitty implementation of Proof of Stake, it has slashing and a leader needs to be elected to make the next block.
Basically the Ethereum team thinks just rewards isnt enough, you should get punished too even tho it doesnt have to be that way as we see with Avalanche.
Only a matter of time until people will get their stake slashed in a painful way, doesnt even have to be their own fault.

So People will try to avoid that risk by outsourcing to a 3rd party which leads towards even more Centralization.
Overall a shitty system they thought up for ETH2.
Also leaving all those Miners hanging, the people who secured the Network for many years, disgusting behavior.

[Anonymous No.50394117]

>>50394054
Avalanche has the best Proof of Stake system on the market and its a good example how to do it right.
Ethereum is a good example on what NOT to do.
No idea what Issues you have with Avalanche, guess the best always have blind butthurt Haters.

[Anonymous No.50394249]

>>50394094
>Also leaving all those Miners hanging, the people who secured the Network for many years, disgusting behavior.
That's not a good argument for why you shouldn't make a protocol switch, and this is coming from someone who thinks PoS is trash

[Anonymous No.50394296]

>>50394117
I'm fucking pissed because I have too low IQ to understand the consensus protocol whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.50394351]

>>50394249
>That's not a good argument for why you shouldn't make a protocol switch
It is tho, Miners put a lot of Work into Ethereum and all they get now is that they get flushed out from the system while Block production is outsourced to 3rd Parties.
so all they did was destroy and fracture the community and centralize the entire thing.

>who thinks PoS is trash
because you are not informed about what Proof of Stake is and that its just spam protection?
here is a short explanation >>50393774
maybe do your own research next time instead of just listening to clueless twitter shills or niggers on jewtube.

>>50394296
its actually really easy to understand,
>basically consensus is reached by probabilistic sampling thousands of independent nodes over multiple rounds

[Anonymous No.50394372]

>>50394020
Honestly I think that makes sense. Not that young PoW coins can't get wrecked by big miners focusing on, sucking what they can and then going back to ETH. Shit is though.
But for a young, but not infant coin, I can't see a reason why PoW->PoS would fail(unless they fuck up technically)

[Anonymous No.50394448]

>>50393628

[Anonymous No.50394529]

>>50394351
>its actually really easy to understand,

>basically consensus is reached by probabilistic sampling thousands of independent nodes over multiple rounds

Dude what, can you explain this like you would explain it to a golden retriever

[Anonymous No.50394788]

>>50393628
>Obviously you will want what is best for the network long term if your stake is large
Almost like...people have to trust that you want what is best for the network, like a trust based model. So why the "decentralization" theater and just stick with one node so that it's faster and cheaper?

[Anonymous No.50394841]

>>50394448
people actually think that PoS is just controlled by 1 person? What if the system actually creates value? This is horribly thought out.

[Anonymous No.50394869]

>>50393847
I see a nose there

[Anonymous No.50395131]

piece of shit

[Anonymous No.50395216]

>>50393628
proof of (pre-mined) stake.

[Anonymous No.50395256]

>>50393628
>>50394448

[Anonymous No.50395385]

>>50393628
If you don't believe POW >>>> POS then you are a POS (Piece Of Shit)

[Anonymous No.50395657]

>>50394841
It is sort of, or it can be, given that the entire token supply (power) is created by the devs and then allocated to validators. You can presumably have a system where the devs and majority validators are a single entity.

Whereas with PoW, the devs, miners, and node operators are all 3 separate entities, and are much less entangled with one another.

[Anonymous No.50395679]

Also, our current (((financial))) system is PoS. PoS blockchains don't really affect current power structures the way PoW does.

[Anonymous No.50395703]

>>50393628
In my opinion the biggest problem with PoS is wealth concentration and distribution issues. Right now no one cares but if these assets do have a shot of becoming global reserve assets that shit matters. PoS is fine for other blockchain use cases but isn't good for neutral, permissionless money for that reason.

[Anonymous No.50395705]

This is a pretty good, unbiased comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h33opQQ0esc

Functionally, they both work fine, they do their jobs and they are both secure and decentralized.

PoS' main advantage is efficiency, both in terms of waste and in terms of money. To elaborate, not only is it obviously far better for society and the environment to not consume a bunch of electricity and e-waste when it's not needed, but the lower consumption directly translates to lower fees to use the blockchain because validators don't have huge expenses in electricity that fees would need to cover for the whole thing to be sustainable.
In theory PoS is also more decentralized, since the amount of cost per influence is linear, instead of being biased by economies of scale for mining equipment, and also the barrier of entry to become a validator is lower. It also has the potential to be harder to attack, especially for chains that aren't the leader in its own PoW hashing algorithm.

PoW, on the other hand, is simpler and therefore there are fewer parts that could go wrong, bugs etc. That's its major advantage. Depending on the specific PoS implementation there might also be a few minor other differences such as PoS depending on the network being online while a PoW node could validate the whole chain by itself offline if it wanted to, but if the network is not online then there's no point either way so it's not really important IMO.

[Anonymous No.50395844]

>>50395705
PoS isn't more resource-efficient though. It just replaces direct energy expenditure with freezing liquidity that can no longer participate in the economy

https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
https://www.somethinginteresting.news/p/proof-of-stake-will-not-save-us

[Anonymous No.50396019]

>>50393744
nope
if they fuck with the chain, they get soft forked out
if you're going with "they have unlimited money", a PoW can be attacked forever, as a 51% with zero transactions in blocks for months or more
a PoW can never recover, unless it changes its mining algo to stop the asic attack

[Anonymous No.50396040]

>>50395844
>PoS isn't more resource-efficient though. It just replaces direct energy expenditure with freezing liquidity that can no longer participate in the economy
That IS more resource-efficient. In fact it's probably the absolute most resource-efficient way to achieve the cost that validators of a nakamoto consensus mechanism must expend.

[Anonymous No.50396075]

>>50393795
>he thinks buying 51% of the asset would only factor in the current prices
>implying trying to buy up 51% of an asset in a short period would sky rocket it up
>add in staked ETH has a validator queue, that'd take a year minimum to get enough validators staked to even attempt the attack
>they attempt it, the network soft forks them out, their stake literally becomes worth zero, and everything carries on as usual

[Anonymous No.50396119]

>>50393815
if you try and double spend, no nodes will accept it, regardless of if you have 51% or not
a 51% doesn't change anything on the protocol, as none of the nodes would accept those blocks and their 51% fork is dead to start
the worst a 51% attack can do is DDOS the network by including nothing but empty blocks, and "freeze" the chain by not allowing any more transactions to happen on it, effectively "stopping the chain" by preventing its only use
and since all those blocks are valid, the attack remains within protocol, and every node will be required to accept it
only way to kill a persistent 51% is hard fork to a new mining algorithm, to destroy their asic's ability to mine it

[Anonymous No.50396126]

>>50395657
This, basically.

[Anonymous No.50396129]

>>50393998
>most famous was steem.
which forked off, and became something else

[Anonymous No.50396222]

>>50394351
>and centralize the entire thing.
like now where single mining pools control massive hash rate, allowing shit like MEV to happen in the first place by having such high odds of getting a block for the MEV faggotry to occur in
>It is tho, Miners put a lot of Work into Ethereum
miners are mercenary whores-for-hire, that will go to whichever chain pays the most, regardless of what it is
have a chain pop up that paid 2x what ethereum mining did, and they'd be gone in an hour. they have no stake in the long term network health
compare to proof of stake, where you literally have to own part of the network itself to participate, and can't just flip a switch to another chain in 30 seconds
miners been subsidized by the network for years, and were paid handsomely for it
now their time is over, and they'll scatter to other chains to leech from after
but remember: hashrate follows the money, and not that money follows the hashrate

[Anonymous No.50396250]

>>50396222
>have a chain pop up that paid 2x what ethereum mining did, and they'd be gone in an hour. they have no stake in the long term network health
This is not true and completely delusional and ignoring the fact that all chains use different algorithms and you can't use the same asics on the different chains. They invest heavily in expensive mining equipment.

[Anonymous No.50396283]

>>50394448
the beginning redditor brought up a fair opinion and if he says that a rich person tends to be a dominant actor in the space it's not of his concern. the leading monero dev comment doesn't make much fair sense when he states something as a fact that doesn't really appear to be a fact in my view

[Anonymous No.50396289]

>>50396222
>This is not true and completely delusional and ignoring the fact that all chains use different algorithms and you can't use the same asics on the different chains.
ETH mining is gpu's, they can go anywhere gpu mining works
>This is not true
you don't think whores and chinks won't go to who pays higher money?
high chain pays more, means people would afford to pay more for gpu's to get it, meaning it'd put pressure on other miners to buy gpu's where they'd end up forced to mine the more high value chain, because the other whores are selling themselves for higher now and cutting into their income

[Anonymous No.50396633]

>>50393628
Basically PoW is an attempt to address the problem of trust in financial transactions by decentralizing verification of each transaction.

However the downside is that PoW scales exponentially in cost with increasing usage of the blockchain, such that replacing centralized currency on any meaningful scale is just so ridiculously inefficient as to make no sense.

PoS attempts to address the exponential cost scaling by getting rid of trustlessness. Which, great if you're only buying in as a speculative asset and you already trust the existing dev team to make decisions that will make the value of the investment to fellow speculators who will buy from you go up, but completely fucking useless and pointless in terms of developing a trustless means of exchange.

For all practical purposes as a working means of exchange it just makes no sense to circle through a PoS blockchain run by a trusted dev team rather than using a trusted central payment processor with every incentive to make the system as efficient as possible.

Basically the only crypto that has any reason to exist is monero and there is no reason why any country should not make it illegal.

[Anonymous No.50396644]

>>50393628
they both suck

[Anonymous No.50397092]

So how does PoS resolve chain splits?

With PoW its easy, longest chain wins.

[Anonymous No.50397214]

>>50395705
>and they are both secure and decentralized.
again, PoS or PoW are Sybil Control Mechanisms, they dont say anything about security or Decentralization.
>>50395844
>PoS isn't more resource-efficient though.
again, Proof of Stake is a Sybil Control Mechanism, it doesnt say anything about resource efficiency. all it does is Spam protection.
>>50396222
>like now where single mining pools control massive hash rate, allowing shit like MEV to happen in the first place by having such high odds of getting a block for the MEV faggotry to occur in
Yes and ETH2 will be not much different, it will still be centralized and even more centralized because nobody will want to carry the risk of Slashing but Slashing isnt something that is really needed.
>>50397092
the same way, Proof of Stake is only a Sybil Control Mechanism.

[Anonymous No.50397334]

>>50397214
You've been reading someone trying to be a smartass by using a different phrase for basically the same thing, and fell for it. Literally like the "sodium chloride" meme. These mechanisms DO absolutely say a lot about security and decentralization and they DO say a lot about efficiency, whether you want to call it a "Sybil Control Mechanism" or a consensus mechanism.

[Anonymous No.50397360]

>>50397334
>These mechanisms DO absolutely say a lot about security and decentralization
nope and they are NOT consensus mechanisms.
maybe do your research first before talking dumb shit and exposing yourself as clueless.

[Anonymous No.50397437]

>>50397360
Yes, they are consensus mechanisms. This is so dumb, like "the consensus mechanism is that the longest chain is correct". Well duh, but by what mechanism is it decided what the longest chain is? The one with the most PoW behind it. Hence PoW has such a large function in the consensus mechanism that it's perfectly reasonable to say that PoW IS the consensus mechanism. If you want to be a smartass about it you can add the rule of the longest chain to be defined within the PoW mechanism, that makes far more sense than to separate to two entirely to the point of saying that PoW is not a consensus mechanism.

It's like saying that the engine is not the propulsion mechanism of a car, it's the wheels because the wheels are the part that pushes off the ground. The definition makes no sense because the wheels cannot push the car by itself, they only cause propulsion because the engine is causing them to turn.

[Anonymous No.50397527]

>>50393628
PoS is based on the presumption that those with stake in the network will vote to improve the network instead of buying 50% of the network, shorting it, then voting in random shit like 'all node validators will pledge to eat the bugs to help the network' to completely tank the price

[Anonymous No.50397586]

Pow! was ok for the Batman TV show boomers loved but we live in piece of shit times so POS is our way.

[Anonymous No.50397623]

>>50397527
Uh, yes, it is indeed based on the presumption that stakers will not flush billions of dollars down the toilet like you describe.

[Anonymous No.50397723]

>>50397437
>Yes, they are consensus mechanisms.
no they are not.
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake itself are NOT Consensus Mechanisms.
when you refer to Proof of Stake you probably mean Lamport-Liskov aka Classical Consensus and when you refer to Proof of Work you are talking about Nakamoto aka Longest Chain.
There is also Avalanche now that achieves consensus through Sub Sampling which is the third consensus family.
Any of these Consensus Protocols could implement any Sybil Control Mechanism they want.
Avalanche for example uses Proof of Stake.
get it now?

[Anonymous No.50397765]

>>50393641
not really

[Anonymous No.50397780]

>>50393774
except in pow the hardware and associated infrastructure investment is never at stake. only the minuscule operating costs for the reorg period.

[Anonymous No.50397781]

>>50397723
Blah blah, heard it before and it's as ridiculous now as then. Nothing I said in my previous post has changed. I will continue to call PoW a consensus mechanism.

[Anonymous No.50397795]

>>50393662
There may be physical constraints on POW that make outcompeting an attacker impossible, but POS is perpetual. Once you have controlling interest, unless you just gift a bunch of coins to 'honest' stakers you don't break control.
The network is fucked, forever at the whim of the controlling staker.
Getting that controlling share can be achieved through exploiting short sales and other market manipulation. The threat isn't in exploiting a network to your benefit on that network. it is a matter of the complete destruction of the network to be benefit of competitors.
Soft fork? Good luck with that. Your attackers aren't going to buy into that to? If the cost of your destruction is less than the market share you would acquire, you buy your competitor.

POW being tied to real world things is less vulnerable to market manipulation, and control can not be taken simply by playing with digits in computer systems. It has other limiting factors (availability to electricity, hardware, etc). Which is why I favor a variety of physically based proofs. Helium was interesting. Proof of coverage (literal physical space) is an interesting vaguely democratic consensus scheme, even though they flushed that shit down the toilet.

>>50396119
FIRO was hit with 51%, and nodes weren't the wiser.
>No nodes would accept those blocks
is an after the fact consideration and only applies if 'nodes' (their operators) decide to roll back the chain.
Rolling back chains has no affect on other chains. YOUR chain rolls back, but any transactions made on other chains are still intact. Rolling back a chain even a few blocks can be catastrophic depending on what transactions were on those blocks.

[Anonymous No.50397854]

>>50397795
>Soft fork? Good luck with that. Your attackers aren't going to buy into that to? If the cost of your destruction is less than the market share you would acquire, you buy your competitor.
Wtf are you talking about? If the attacker is soft forked away, he loses all his funds. Tens of billions of dollars. Extremely few people or organizations can afford that even once, and you're suggesting they will just keep doing it? They cannot.
A soft fork is the answer. An attacker does NOT have forever control of the network, he will be forked away and that will be that, the network restored and the attacked tens of billions of dollars poorer.

[Anonymous No.50397881]

>>50397781
not my problem if you choose to stay retarded.
many such cases, sad.

[Anonymous No.50397940]

>>50397623
Yes, and someone who is short the asset would benefit from such things. Pic related

[Anonymous No.50397957]

>>50393628
PoS is better than PoW on mega-scales and long established chains.

With PoS, you eventually arrive at a point where existing stakers >>> liquid available supply, so it becomes essentially impossible to take over the network. PoS is significantly more efficient at scale than PoW. And with PoW, there is always a risk of a powerful attacker (i.e. a rogue country like China) spinning up mining rigs to take over or destroy a network.

Anyone saying you can buy-out a chain with PoS but not PoW is a brainlet. Given a $1T mcap PoW chain, the total capital cost of all miners is less than 1%. It's far cheaper to buy out a PoW chain than a PoS chain at the same scale.

[Anonymous No.50397993]

>>50393901
>but I've seen at least one major red flag with avax so won't get into that one.
>trust me, i'm a clueless newfag

[Anonymous No.50398016]

>>50393744
To a point, yes. Justin Sun attempted to do that with Steem back in 2020, only for the community to fork him out and start a new chain. If a coin has enough whales what disagree with each other, you're less likely to have this happen.

Also, having been in the thick of that whole Steem shitstorm, I can safely say that community engagement is what keeps a PoS coin alive. Hey OP? If you see this and you're looking at PoS coins, look for ones that have a community that actually does shit. I'm partial to Hive because of it's community and the dApps created for it, but there are others like it that you'd do fine in as well. Good luck in your search.
>>50393628

[Anonymous No.50398022]

>>50397940
They'd profit far, far less than they'd lose. The total stake would need to be minuscule compared to trading liquidity in order for that to work. No chain will have such an imbalance, and if they do then this is the least of their problems, PoS or not.
This guys says that "the network has no way of knowing if there is a much larger short position than the staked coins", but it's a pretty damn safe assumption that there isn't. In fact, PoW basically makes the same assumption. You could go ahead and short bitcoin and then buy so much mining gear that you can start a long-lasting 51% attack and bet that the ensuing chaos causes your short to profit more than you spent on that mining gear.

[Anonymous No.50398049]

>>50393944
Eat rats dot head Jeet

[Anonymous No.50398080]

what do you guys think about peter todd proposing to add fix tail emission type inflation to bitcoin?

he seem to have convinced quiet a few that it's asymptomatically 0% anyways.

[Anonymous No.50398111]

>>50393628
Algorand is pure proof of steak PPoS. The way it's structure there is no incentive to take over the network by buying all the coins because you will just destroy the value of them based on how consensus works.

[Anonymous No.50398275]

>>50397795
>is an after the fact consideration and only applies if 'nodes' (their operators) decide to roll back the chain.
you're right on the chain rollback, to in a sense undo parts of a 51%
though post rollback, there'd still be issue of the attacker continuing the 51% attack, post rollback.
likely that type of rollback alone would cause as much contention as a long term 51% attack would. a rollback would go against the bitcoin mantra of "the chain is permanent, no forks, and whoever puts the most PoW in earned it"

[Anonymous No.50398398]

>>50398275
it's pretty easy to fix that problem and never have to roll back. make it simpler!

[Anonymous No.50398457]

>>50398080
only thing i could see viable long term
it's sure as hell not going to come from fees
likely at some point a halvening will be found to be more of a cost than benefit, and miners will first argue then agree at just removing the next halvening date, and keep it as a tail emission forever forwards
ruins the "muh only 21 million ever" narrative, but likely by that point bitcoin will so ingrained in finance that it doesn't need that narrative anymore

[Anonymous No.50398988]

>>50398457
>miners will first argue then agree at just removing the next halvening date
they actually tried that at the first time and failed. some miners tired to keep mining 50 btc. and the users said fu!

[Anonymous No.50399130]

Tail emission is unnecessary. Tx fees will obviously work. Users will just have to pay % of their transaction value, and keep paying tx fees for multiple blocks.

[Anonymous No.50400143]

>>50398457
bitcoin will become an ERC-20 token and you will be happy

[Anonymous No.50400795]

>>50399130
it's not actually obvious the fees will work at all.
reason being the math between finality and fees and secured value transacted works out real bad.

[Anonymous No.50400913]

>>50393641
Wouldn’t you crash it making it worthless beyond the point of how much you spent you gain that much control?

[Anonymous No.50400968]

>>50393628
There's a reason Satoshi didn't opt for Proof of Stake when he built Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.50401095]

>>50396633
BSV already solved this problem.

[Anonymous No.50401184]

>>50401095
by being a garbage dump that collects $50 in fees per block?

[Anonymous No.50401314]

>>50400968
it was not really an option for him if he wanted a fair launch.

[Anonymous No.50401869]

>>50400143
If it does I'm leaving crypto behind and buying gold. I'd literally capitulate to Peter Schiff.

[Anonymous No.50402138]

>>50393662
>((cost)) you half the market cap
thats not how mcap works. it would cost me the price people are willing to sell it at.
>>50397765
yes really thats why distribution schedules exist
>>50400913
what do you mean "crash it"

all of you read this
>>50397795

[Anonymous No.50402152]

>>50394296
you need to be more patient with yourself you adhd riddled fuck.

pos is for jews that want to make money off interest.
pow is for people that actually want to advance the technology of mankind through technological advancement in hardware and energy expenditure

[Anonymous No.50402211]

PoW cope is that it is less centralized because miners have incentive to sell coin. Yet mining becomes a specialized and centralized task itself. Ultimately PoS is just more advanced. Not every chain needs to be PoS, but to argue PoS is a scam is pure cope at this point. All the emerging L1s are PoS. Not my fault you are putting your feelings over the facts, chuds.

[Anonymous No.50402562]

>>50397957
>With PoS, you eventually arrive at a point where existing stakers >>> liquid available supply, so it becomes essentially impossible to take over the network
A cartel of existing stakers can easily & covertly form to take over the network

An advantage of PoW is that mining has a heat signature. If a PoW network becomes globally significant, it is not possible for an adversarial cartel of miners to remain covert. Tomahawk missiles will neutralize the threat

[Anonymous No.50402666]

>>50402562
Not only that, liquid staking derivatives can easily fuck up this whole dynamic as they get more popular. And they will because they have marketing budgets.

Is it an exchange staking on your behalf? Good luck fending off an attack by a few of the biggest ones after being mandated to by the state.

[Anonymous No.50402842]

>>50393628
PoS - Piece of shit

Check'em

[Anonymous No.50402852]

>>50398080
Fixed supply is one of Bitcoins "features". They will take forever if ever to do it and by then it's too late. We're already there with Monero with tail emissions working as intended.

[Anonymous No.50402883]

>>50402211
Not with ASIC/GPU resistant algos. Much harder to centralise with CPUs as barrier to entry is very low.

[Anonymous No.50402884]

>>50402211
this but unironically.
the actual "problem" with PoS is that its hard to distribute initially. The good thing is that retards will sell their stake for cheap on crashes anyway.

[Anonymous No.50403063]

>>50398080
It wont happen. A lot of people believe that bitcoins value comes from the fact that it can't change. Changing it will make it maybe more sustainable on paper from a long term security budget perspective but will permanently lower the value of the network to the point where it's kinda pointless to do anything. Better to find unique use cases for btc through ICP integration, stacks, merge mining, etc in order to shore up any deficits.

Most likely it's a contentious hardfork like BCH where people decide to sell one side of the split for another with the most likely victor being the 21m fork. The value of both will trend down over time though if this path is pursued since the community likely won't recover from another blocksize war level event

[Anonymous No.50403219]

Proof of work doesn't require you to control any of the supply. You just need to exploit hashing power. Therefore its less secure. Chinks used to control a bulk of the supply.

A 51% attack on proof of stake is harder to launch as essentially you are launching an attack on your own holdings. You don't stand to gain much. You'd probably send the price into orbit trying to buy that much anyways.

[Anonymous No.50403374]

>>50393628
Proof of work uses up all the energy we need for important stuff, but it is decentralized anyway.
Proof of stake is easily centralized, but it is energy efficient.
Proof of Randomness is energy efficient and still decentralized.
>Choose wisely

[Anonymous No.50403535]

proof of work physically secures bitcoin by the laws of the universe
proof of stake digitally secures a blockchain by its own set of arbitrary rules.

physical security will always be harder than digital security to break, because one breaks everywhere at once, while the other remains physically distributed
but digital security will always be cheaper than physical security to implement in a "good enough" state


either way, i wouldn't trust a security system based around wokeness long-term, so proof of stake is going to have to prove itself on a pure security level first, which it has yet to do.

[Anonymous No.50403555]

>>50403219
nope, you just digitally gain access to large quantities of coins, don't break the rules, and own the network forever. very easy compared to poof of work, and the only way to stop it is a contentious hard fork spawning yet another forked chain.

there is no mechanism in proof of anything to protect against monopolies, only in proof of work monopolies cost you money, while in proof of stake they become more profitable.

[Anonymous No.50403607]

>>50393641
Now that's monopoly of the crypto market and it's not healthy for us all.

[Anonymous No.50403691]

>>50403607
I don't think there is anything wrong with monopolizing POS even though some of my major crypto projects like CKB are built on POW. That an EQ has become my core investment in DeFi during this bear. All men to their taste.

[Anonymous No.50403779]

>>50397854
>Wtf are you talking about? If the attacker is soft forked away, he loses all his funds. Tens of billions of dollars.
By the time the rest of the community has made a fork, the attacker has already run to the exchanges/vendors to cash out. (They can do 51% attacks way faster than in PoW because no one waits for multiple blocks as there's no chance of finney attack). The new buyers bear the risk, and you burn them by making a fork, so why would they have faith in the new fork?

[Anonymous No.50403781]

>>50403691
CKB is a great platform. They been making the hotlist in Binance lately. I am not quite sure I know EQ. Where is it listed?

[Anonymous No.50403804]

>>50403063
>It wont happen. A lot of people believe that bitcoins value comes from the fact that it can't change
as a monero bagholder I was worried for a sec that bitcoiners would copy us, but this is very relieving. Now that I think about it, tail emission would be way less popular than blocksize increase so there's no way it's happening lmao.

[Anonymous No.50403810]

>>50403779
yeah, as soon as "we just fork" becomes part of the security system, you're back to the existing human-trust-secured world we've had for millennia.

the entire innovation of bitcoin, and the only real innovation we've yet to have in crypto so far, is that we can obsolete human trust by cryptographic trust. a proof system that still heavily relies on human trust is just a human trust system with unnecessary technical complexity to distract you from that fact.

[Anonymous No.50403812]

>not so subtly disguised eth fud thread
Bullish, will buy more.

[Anonymous No.50403816]

>>50393744
It's literally the opposite, the can't fork away someone's hardware

[Anonymous No.50403821]

>>50403804
doesn't really matter either way when monero has been slowly fading into obsolescence and irrelevance since 2017, when the intersection of its technology and utility peaked.

[Anonymous No.50403840]

>>50403781
Last I checked EQ has not listed.They only had the first round of their token offering and preparing for the second round.

[Anonymous No.50403843]

>>50403821
Price != Relevance
Bitcoin has been fading into obsolescence and irrelevance since 2017. The opposite is true of monero. Monero has only been getting bigger and better since 2017 in terms of tech, usage, and social capital.
Remember, RandomX was just in late 2019. We were fighting off ASICs hardfork-to-hardfork before then.

[Anonymous No.50403853]

>>50403821
I would even go so far as to say that Monero was irrelevant *before* 2017. Because it used to be that bitcoin was still the top dog on the DN.

[Anonymous No.50403885]

>>50403804
>>50403821
>>50403843
Monero bros and BTC bros need to cool it with all the hostility towards each other. Both need each other to reach maximum potential.

Atomic swaps between the two is a better outcome for both communities and their potential is better realized with them both existing. Making it a constant pissing contest is retarded and will just drive a wedge between the communities making it more likely both fail and get disrupted by some PoS nonsense where both get BTFO.

[Anonymous No.50403951]

>>50403843
nobody said anything about price, monero's relevant price against btc peaked in 2018, not 2017.
2017 was simply the last time you could consider monero a modern privacy utility at a time when people had effectively no other choice if that's what they wanted.

but that time has come and gone.

>>50403853
monero definitely was relevant before for those that actually cared about privacy, its just the number of people that did care hasn't grown particularly much in the last 5+ years and on top of that alternatives to monero that provide more utility with equal or better (not in all but in significant areas) technology are now widely available.

>>50403885
i don't think monero is relevant enough to cause anyone except for late adopter btc bagholders to care about it.
monero is a fine utility, it's just not managed to keep up technologically, which is a problem exclusive to alts. the real thing that killed monero was tornado cash and equivalents on ethereum, which aren't perfect, but provide the same level of deniability while being native and integrated into the only relevant crypto platform we have today.

[Anonymous No.50404209]

>>50393628
energy backs all value, whether it's abstract or not is irrelevant
few understand this. ETH holders will have a first-hand lesson in the coming years.

[Anonymous No.50404258]

>>50403951
Monero quite recently passed BTC as the most popular coin used to buy vouchers and that is the easiest way to spend crypto anonymously.

[Anonymous No.50404347]

>>50402884
And what about the insiders that have 80% of the mcap?

[Anonymous No.50404355]

>>50403810
Based

[Anonymous No.50404630]

>>50403951
>the real thing that killed monero was tornado cash and equivalents on ethereum
I think L2 privacy is shit and terrible opsec, but especially on etherium, plus you are competing with the rest of eth's wasted consensus bandwidth to get your txes in.
Not to mention there is not a single eth wallet that is comparable to bitcoin-qt or electrum, it's all bloated corporate AWS crap.

>>50404209
>energy backs all value, whether it's abstract or not is irrelevant
false. Even if computers required no energy to run, PoW would still work. There is a Time-Value cost of computer hardware regardless of whether it consumes energy, in fact this is probably what satoshi would have originally intended before really considering the game-theory and logistics of mining.

[Anonymous No.50404650]

>>50393628
Rich get richer, eventually everything grinds down to zero as velocity drops.

[Anonymous No.50404666]

>>50403885
bitcoin is strictly inferior to monero, but it's not because of any technical feature. It's because of the social feature of the bitcoin community that prevents them from accepting hard-forks since Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin had the opportunity to change the world, but the bitcoin community got greedy and squandered it.

In other words: YOU BLEW IT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5RtlpXsl8k

[Anonymous No.50404697]

>>50393662
>>50393744
You only need 33% of what is staked to attack PoS networks.
ETH has slasher that punishes bad behavior that happens 2000 blocks in the past. So can attack network for up to 16.5 hours.

[Anonymous No.50404763]

>>50397940
>Yes, and someone who is short the asset would benefit from such things. Pic related
imagine the smell of that short squeeze

[Anonymous No.50404854]

>>50403821
>doesn't really matter either way when monero has been slowly fading into obsolescence and irrelevance since 2017, when the intersection of its technology and utility peaked.

>>50403951
>monero is a fine utility, it's just not managed to keep up technologically, which is a problem exclusive to alts. the real thing that killed monero was tornado cash and equivalents on ethereum, which aren't perfect, but provide the same level of deniability while being native and integrated into the only relevant crypto platform we have today.

lol holy shit, the cope levels are off the meter!

Monero-only is demonstrably the NEW standard for darknet markets, in fact yet another Monero-only market launched literally just a couple of days ago.

And now consider how the general OPSEC community takes its cues from the battle-hardened darknet OPSEC gurus. Monero has only just begun its ascent to the throne.

[Anonymous No.50405732]

>>50402211
>All the emerging L1s are PoS
As someone who looked at each and every single L1, I can tell you with absolute confidence that they are all scams. VC backed single chain dogshit that only has low fees because of a high block gas limit. You are utterly fucking retarded and should end your life

[Anonymous No.50405845]

>>50405732
What is the benefit of a high block gas limit?

[Anonymous No.50405867]

>>50405845
More tps, at the cost of an ever-growing state. But those projects don't want to be here forever anyway, they only exist so the devs and VCs make money. If you seriously expect solana avax polygon etc to exist in a few years you're in for a surpise.

[Anonymous No.50406028]

[Anonymous No.50406066]

>>50404854
No one has been able to answer how XMR will be able to survive losing the majority of its liquidity when exchanges are banned from offering it when it starts becoming a real threat to governments ability to tax or it facilitates large enough dark net markets. Atomic swaps are near unusable by the masses (and have a tiny pool of liquidity), p2p is garbage and only facilitates tiny swaps and like exchanges can get axxed (aside from in person) with legislation. It seems XMR's long term viability and growth 100% reliant on thorchain enabling atomic XMR pairs.

[Anonymous No.50406090]

>>50405867
>>50405732
What about ICP? It isn't single chain since whenever they want to scale they add more nodes to host different content.

[Anonymous No.50406091]

>>50406066
>are banned from offering it when it starts becoming a real threat to governments ability to tax or it facilitates large enough dark net markets
RETARD https://youtu.be/REC5V7d3pqM?t=2883
When will you kill yourself, you should do it, stop wasting peoples time with your dumbass opinions
Thorchain is an unsecure scam

>>50406090
How do they secure every single node from attacks?

[Anonymous No.50406106]

>>50406091
I have no idea that is why I am asking. I can't figure out why that hasn't happened yet. ICP is too convuled for me to figure out which part is retarded.

[Anonymous No.50406109]

>>50406091
I've watched that video a few times. He himself says that losing liquidity and regulation in regards to exchanges are the biggest threat to the long term viability to XMR. I'm starting to think XMR shills are being paid to shit up this board given the absolute state of the replies I get to legitimate concerns. Fucking jeet tier tactics of attacking instead of considering the content of posts.

[Anonymous No.50406114]

>>50393628
PoS is better long term.

[Anonymous No.50406165]

>>50393774
thanks moneybelly

[Anonymous No.50406199]

>>50396075
this. Algorand and Ethereum are actually safer than Bitcoin. Just 10x the market cap,enjoy. anyone ignoring these facts is RETARDED. "muh you burn energy constantly", top kek. some of you are really fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.50406262]

>>50406199
>Algorand
> safer than Bitcoin
algorand had 106 nodes you can take down for it to dump to 0, try doing the same with all bitcoin nodes

[Anonymous No.50406532]

>>50393628

Both are fine. You're asking a board of degenerate, gambling retards what they think of a deep concept.

[Anonymous No.50406598]

>>50406532
>Both are fine

[Anonymous No.50406713]

>>50406262
you can't. also 106 nodes are relays, not a big deal. Also, can't collude on Algorand, never forks.

This is unironically a more resilient chain than Bitcoin. First makor war and network partition? Bitcoin dead. Algorand still up. Quantum attack tomorrow? Bitcoin dead, Algo up. Massive attack to perform double spend? Bitcoin affected, Algorand unaffected.

[Anonymous No.50406724]

>>50406713
>not a big dea
It's a huge deal you brainlet
>Also, can't collude
because it might as well be XRP
>never forks.
That's a bug not a feature

[Anonymous No.50407031]

>>50393687
>all the power in those that have the most money (sounds familiar).
Looks like joint stock companies all over again.

[Anonymous No.50407556]

>>50402562
>A cartel of existing stakers can easily & covertly form to take over the network
This is grasping at straws. Let's frame our reference point from my previous post: long established mega-scale chains.
Is it technically possible for existing stakers to collude and take over a chain? Yes, but it's exceptionally improbable to the point of near-impossibility. Not only are most large existing staking addresses associated with known figures/institutions, but you also have to question why would they do this in the first place. Why would the top 51% of stakers destroy hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars worth of their own value to take over a chain? It is extremely economically disadvantageous, and that's the point of putting up your own "stake" as collateral on the network.

In fact, I'd argue that it's likely easier for this scenario to happen with PoW miners. Most ASIC BTC miners are produced out of China. Let's say China decides that BTC is a threat to their power and autocratic existence. They could nationalize existing factories producing ASIC BTC miners and force them to produce for the state. Good luck with your Tomahawk missiles though lmao.

[Anonymous No.50407577]

>>50393628
POW is work getting done by people with useful skillsets.
POS is the HR department thinking they are the shit

[Anonymous No.50407954]

>PoS
Would you choose to stake your liquidity for the general security of the chain or at any defi/dex for 50% more return?

Free market capitalism will quickly neuter all forms of PoS during anytime other than a golden bull run (where the goal is to sell junk commodities to general pop), which is a thing of the past.

[Anonymous No.50407988]

>>50406199
>Avax
>Algo
>Ada
Only biz retards, like you, choose the most inflatable coins for lottery tickets. Good luck having your MC 10x while the supply is 50x at twice the speed.

[Anonymous No.50407998]

>>50407988
Forgot pic. Might as well add link for source to help the non-retards.
>https://academy.aax.com/en/a-critical-study-of-cardano-ada/

[Anonymous No.50408022]

>>50403843
Monero is getting obsolete as other privacy protocols have emerged with more sophisticated tech like rail which has got a robust privacy tech which offers total privacy and onchain anonymity without bridges and isnt token gated unlike monero, you retarded cringe zoomer fucktard

[Anonymous No.50408071]

>>50408022
> other privacy protocols have emerged
mention a single crypto-currency
protip: YOU CANT

[Anonymous No.50408371]

>>50407988
>>50407998
Both your post and your source is wildly misinformed (or trolling). Let's assume you're not trolling.

Staking yield is not equivalent to inflation rate. For example, 10 months ago (when that article was written) LUNA was DEflationary and the 5.62% yield came entirely from network fees (behaving like a dividend).
There are other inaccuracies like with AVAX the inflation rate is NOT 68%, that's an erroneous Messari statistic based on projected vesting token unlocks. AVAX has a max token supply of 720m and single-digit inflation.

I'm not informed on all of them, but in general many PoS chains have mild inflation to bootstrap chain security, with inflationary rates decreasing over time and yield from network fees growing as network usage grows. Many PoS chains also have a fixed max supply like BTC.

[Anonymous No.50408388]

>>50408371
hfsp retard

[Anonymous No.50408398]

>>50393628
PoW is Chad.
PoS is Chud.

[Anonymous No.50408676]

>>50408388
people like you are insufferable

[Anonymous No.50408737]

>>50408398
PoS = Proof of Semitism = piece of shit

[Anonymous No.50409600]

>>50408676
No, psuedo-intellectuals midtwits who have watched a tiktok on the BTC & ETH whitepapers and completely ignore basic, irrefutable economic principles such as supply vs demand (like you) are the nightmare fuel.
Reading that article I shared would actually help retards like you but I'm sure you are in it for the tech too.

[Anonymous No.50409773]

>>50402138
>distribution schedules
you are talking about something that has nothing to do with pos.

[Anonymous No.50409793]

>>50402852
>>50403063
>Most likely it's a contentious hardfork like BCH where people decide to sell one side of the split

yes hard forks are the only way to escape the tyranny of the majority.

[Anonymous No.50409837]

>>50409600
You made erroneous and misinformed claims. I corrected you with facts and supplemental examples.

Since then, instead of refuting my evidence or really providing any argument with substance, you have angrily engaged in deflection and name-calling.

Congratulations. Really, well done.

[Anonymous No.50409877]

>>50409773
Emission schedules in crypto are the same thing as a distribution schedule in tradfi you fucking psuedo-intellectual midtwit retard.
There is a reason every single defi/dex PoS coin has the burj khalifa graph; an ever increasing supply that demand can't match.

[Anonymous No.50409919]

>>50409837
>reddit spacing
>more psuedo-intellectual circular rhetoric
KYS nigger we don't need more midtwit retards like you

[Anonymous No.50409952]

>>50396019
As opposed to a PoW chain not forking? Also, who do you think decides on the fork on PoS? The attacker yep.

[Anonymous No.50409967]

>>50409877
again has nothing to do with pos. people just love printing their own money. it may be hard to understand but pos stripped down to it's essence from all the bullshit complexity and the scammy parts is a more secure and fair block selection system than pow. this is provable.

however pow is required for truly fair bootstrapping. pos can't bootstrap itself.

[Anonymous No.50409987]

>>50409919
kek, you don't even know what reddit spacing is either

welcome to /biz/, newfag

[Anonymous No.50410028]

>>50393628
There is no problem unless you are a Bitcoin maxi. PoW will be regulated out of existence. Bitcoin will have to fork or die.

[Anonymous No.50410056]

>>50402138
>thats not how mcap works. it would cost me the price people are willing to sell it at.
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.50410071]

>>50409987
kill

your

self

faggot

[Anonymous No.50410081]

>>50409967
>is a more secure and fair block selection system than pow. this is provable.
see
>>50407954
>Would you choose to stake your liquidity for the general security of the chain or at any defi/dex for 50% more return?

[Anonymous No.50410430]

>>50410056
:)

[Anonymous No.50410443]

>>50393628
What do you think of POR that combines the best of them?

[Anonymous No.50410445]

>>50410081
i don't care about vc games and assorted scams.

i'm telling you i was a huge pow shill for years, but after doing some actual math on it and not just regurgitating smooth brain talking points i have seen the inevitable conclusion: pure pow is not going to work out.

now pos may not work out either. but at least the incentive structure is more robust and recovery of decentralization is possible without breaking protocol. unlike pow.

[Anonymous No.50410449]

>>50396633
>However the downside is that PoW scales exponentially in cost with increasing usage of the blockchain, such that replacing centralized currency on any meaningful scale is just so ridiculously inefficient as to make no sense.

No BSV proves you wrong

[Anonymous No.50410680]

>>50410443
Wtf is PoR jeet?

[Anonymous No.50410755]

>>50410445
PoW is shit but not as retarded or scammy as PoS.
>buy x
>x protects and creates y
>sell y to maintain x
>x and y has own market and value
or
>buy x
>x protects and creates x
> sell x to maintain x
There is no cycle or market. Also, at some point (protection and creation probably due to free market decisions) it'll break.
The only way I can see it working is if any PoS coin can implement a regulation (kek) for any/all apr's for secondary coins to not surpass the main coin's incentive.
Trying to bandaid this problem w/double staking (lido ETH) only increases the problem 10x and results in a bank run because $1 of liquidity will never equate to $2 without leveraging.

[Anonymous No.50410857]

>>50410680
That should be Proof of Randomness consensus algorithm developed by Qanplatform

[Anonymous No.50410872]

>>50410755
no pos is very simple with pos you only risk the operating costs for the reorg period and likelihood of wasting them is extremely low. with pos you risk your entire stake if you try to break the rules, or just flex too much and with a fairly high probability. as the schelling point humans will agree on, is to punish the responsible party if something goes wrong.

so your expected returns will be positive with pow given high enough bribes but they will almost certainly be negative with pos if sufficient amount is staked in total.

[Anonymous No.50410882]

>>50410755
no pos is very simple. with *pow you only risk the operating costs for the reorg period and likelihood of wasting them is extremely low. with pos you risk your entire stake if you try to break the rules, or just flex too much and with a fairly high probability. as the schelling point humans will agree on, is to punish the responsible party if something goes wrong.

so your expected returns will be positive with pow given high enough bribes but they will almost certainly be negative with pos if sufficient amount is staked in total.

[Anonymous No.50410953]

>>50410872
>operating costs for the reorg period
You've never ran a legit stake pool. It requires IT hardware, maintenance and electricity.
Oh look, we've matched exactly what a PoW overhead now.
>with pos you risk your entire stake if you try to break the rules
Another reason why PoS is a meme.
>sufficient amount is staked in total.
In a free modern market money goes to the most efficient outlet. If you weren't retarded you saw that this last bullrun by every half-decent crypto hedgefund, invest more liquidity into the coin's ecosystem than coin itself because higher EV. Leading to both the coin's ecosystem and coin itself failing.

[Anonymous No.50411066]

PoW is an energy technology, it converts local MW inte global MW. Energy producers have for the first time another buyer of elctricity that’s open 24/7. Global wireless energy arbitrage! That’s the innovation, not bLocKcHain, or PoS that’s just the fiat interest rate scam but on an append-only database

[Anonymous No.50411457]

[Anonymous No.50411503]

>>50410953
>It requires IT hardware, maintenance and electricity.
irrelevant compared to the staked value.
>Leading to both the coin's ecosystem and coin itself failing.
good!

[Anonymous No.50411531]

>>5041044
I'm familiar with Proof of Randomness consensus algorithm that makes Qan an ecofriendly blockchain

[Anonymous No.50411541]

>>50411066
it's very cool, but it's questionable that the power expended on bitcoin could exceed the value bitcoin as a transactional network can provide long term.

and that value is gonna get insanely low with the subsidy gone. with the subsidy minting new coins is what miners mainly use electricity for and that makes a more clear economic sense.

[Anonymous No.50411561]

>>50393815
Unless youre entire MO is to crash the coin (which would cost you a fortune to do so) you lose everything. I can't fathom a situation where one would want to do this and incur significant losses.

[Anonymous No.50411612]

>>50411561
>Unless youre entire MO is to crash the coin (which would cost you a fortune to do so) you lose everything. I can't fathom a situation where one would want to do this and incur significant losses.

Hostile governments would have the means and incentive.

[Anonymous No.50411659]

>>50411531
POR is best of both worlds as you said annon it's an eco-friendly approach to become a validator.

[Anonymous No.50411821]

>>50411531
That's right. It is more decentralised compared to other protocols that I've encountered.

[Anonymous No.50411843]

>>50411659
you know your coin is full pozzed if it has "validator" nodes and not every node validates the everything.

[Anonymous No.50411986]

>>50393628
Pos is better

[Anonymous No.50412053]

>>50393694
Pow rigs might go offline. Usa and china has over 50% of btc hashrate and when these 3rd world cpuntries flipflop theyr electricity its cheap tp do 51% attack
Pos can be run with batteries and satellite network.

[Anonymous No.50412070]

>>50411986
not really. if the hashpower is extremely well distributed pow is much better than anything else.
pos is just way more salvageable than pow when it fails. comes at a price tho.

[Anonymous No.50412086]

>>50395844
Horrible argument, thinking that "more tokens participating in the economy" is good per se. Any quantity of money is enough; inflation doesn't mean we are richer. PoW supporter here.

[Anonymous No.50412102]

>>50412053
satelites and lr radio are mostly a bandwith constraint. has nothing to do with the algo.

[Anonymous No.50412117]

>>50393744
>51% attacks are permanent in PoS
Pow is ruined after 51% and pos attack makes your networth go to 0 but in pow attack you still have hardware.
After pos attack there wpuld just be fork that removed all fund from attacker.

[Anonymous No.50412300]

>>50394448
Comment missing from that thread from articmine which explains things further:

>An exchange is just one possibility. I formulated the Second Pirate Savings and Trust attack on POS back in 2015 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10182752#msg10182752

>Those who were around Bitcoin in 2011 - 2012 might remember the First Pirate Savings and Trust that went bust when Bitcoin rose in price from ~2 USD to ~15 USD.

[Anonymous No.50412345]

>>50393641
its the same with proof of work you just have to pay for rigs instead

[Anonymous No.50412415]

>>50393628
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiodo9uYqmg

[Anonymous No.50412449]

>>50393901
>please refrain from shilling coins unless using as an example to explain something
literally what he did

[Anonymous No.50412456]

>>50411659
With PoR, no need to purchase expensive mining rigs, just a mobile phone or raspberry pi is acceptable

[Anonymous No.50412592]

>>50412456
Yeah that's the specialty it being an eco-friendly approach. I'm just for the mainnet to go live so I can start the mining anon.

[Anonymous No.50413113]

>>50393628
Governance wise they both suck.

Some examples.

Bitcoin: Nodes cost nothing. You can literally run a full node on your laptop or desktop. Since nodes vote on updates, some sufficiently rich entity could spam nodes to make sure some update passes. Same way, they could DDoS a node thus prohibiting him/her from voting.

Polkadot: https://www.reddit.com/r/dot/comments/qdj64e/we_dont_have_a_full_control_of_our_tokens/

presented without comment.

[Anonymous No.50413667]

>>50413113
you can't force updates on the bitcoin network by sybils.

that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.50413909]

>>50403951
>peaked in 2017
pic related speaks differently

[Anonymous No.50414254]

>>50412300
Thanks for adding that complementing material. I didn't know about the "Pirate savings and trust", will definitely look more into it.